Opinions are like a%$*oles, everyone has them and they're usually full of &amp;*it! Argue with our Opinion writers or add your own. Who knows... a great opinion post could land you a featured opinion article!

Like the topic says, how far should a ISP be responsible for what their service's are used for? I will be branching this subject off into two, one for web/server hosters and one for regular ISP's. I kno wthat this will probably get into a good debate with everyone, and I am hoping it will...... I would like to hear everyones opinions on this topic.

To start off, how far should web/server hosts be responsible for what they are hosting? Should they be held accountable for the illigal things that come from what they host (P2P, (child) pornagraphy (or underage viewers), zombie servers (to carry out hacks/DDoS)?

IMO, I believe that they should be responsible for what they host. I think that starting to crack down at that level would help at getting rid of some illigal activities that occur on the internet.

Now the second part, and the longer of the two. How much should a ISP be responsible for what their users do, and how far should they be allowed to go to stop any type of illigal activities?

This is my main focus of the thread. To start out, I think that ISP's should be more responsible for what their users are doing, but at the same time I think that they are not allowed to really watch what they do. I remember less than a year ago that their was a bill in Congress that allowed ISP's to watch what websites people visited, and their was a big argument about invasion of privacy that went into why it wasn't passed (please correct me on this if I am wrong.... I just got into work, and am still tired).

I also believe that with the ISP's being able to watch the websites, I think that they should be allowed to watch any traffic that is passed through their network. More descriptively, ports, host and destnation addresses, any NAT services on either side, and application that is being used. This would help monitor traffic for illigal uses (hacking, P2P, although not all P2P is illigal).

I think that the ISP's could, and should, be a first line of defense against illigal uses of the internet. And like i said in the beginning, I would like to hear everyones opinion on this subject.

Secondly, no to both. Not only would both of these place a HUGE burden on ISPs, but they would cripple any sort of freedom that we enjoy on the internet now. Yes, this might make things a bit more secure, but what would we be trading for this?

Good book choice for the thread. I'll also say no to both, how far should web server hosts be responsible for what they're hosting? I have to agree with you Rakurai to an extent that they should be cracking down a little bit more but seriously do they? With you stating that them cracking down on sites would rid people of their online illegal activities (obtaining zombie machines, child pornography for some of you...joking), you can only stop so much. Lets just say they do start cracking down on sites that host these types of illegal files, don't you think there are alternate resources available? I think if a user has malicious intent on others he's going to try every way possible (to his knowledge) to achieve that goal. This being stated, if servers start cracking down on sites that people are using to distribute their malware, would those site owners come up with an alternate way of distributing their malicious zombie server - meaning in more of an illegal way? Lets say a person goes to a site with intent in their mind that they are going to download a Trojan Horse (From one of these sites hosting malware that a web server / host should of cracked down on) to use on a victim. If the trojans binded with a server itself from the site owner the person downloading the trojan would be fucked over in the end. It's users who are actually putting themselves at risk by going out there and downloading the tools, etc that are getting their computers compromised, I'm sure a lot of them are aware they are on an illegal site so if they're computer gets harmed by one of the site owners...that sucks...I've seen sites running illegal content & basically all you have to do is report them to their host and they'll take care of the site. It seems like they're too busy to check out what's actually being hosted on their servers. Your second question about ISPs being able to be responsible for what their users are doing, they should be to an extent. While I doubt they're allowed to watch the sites we visit, I'm sure they monitor all the traffic moving in and out, reason I say this was because about a year ago I had a buddy running a Bit Torrent downloading a crack of Microsoft Office 2007, his ISP contacted his dad in a matter of a day or two stating the exact download he grabbed, from what host, his IP, etc...So in a way I think they do monitor whats going on. I think if people knew a certain ISP was lurking on their paid customers internet activity not only would it be illegal and violate our privacy, they'd definitely go out of business because everyone would be switching to a new ISP. Just my thought on the subject!

I'm not a fan of having the governemnt monitor every little thing I do and would prefer that they stay out. I do agree that having the ISPs do soemthing to monitor/stop illegal traffic would be great, but we then run into that whole freedom of expression thing here in the US. As far as the under age viewing goes, where are the parents fo these kids? Who should be responsible?

As a parent, is it my responsibilty to protect my family, or should I wait for the government to do it? I want the ISP to provide the service that I pay for, nothing more, nothing less. If I want to filter or monitor, that is my choice and can easily be done within my own network. I want the control, not some bot sitting in a cube that can't find his rear with both hands and the light on.

If they want to monitor traffic on their network that is their perogative and that monitoring needs to be clearly spelled out for their customers and any traffic that might pass over their netwrok from an outside network. The problem than becomse how to you let people know this in no uncertain terms especially when there is no fixed route that your traffic will always take from point a to point b. We all know that the Internet dynamically routes data. What is the best path this time may not be next time. So yeah, my ISp may monitor whatever I send out from my connection to their network, but should they be policing what ever data crosses there netowrk and does not origenate or terminate on it, no.

Just my thoughts. We will see what the future hold as ISPs are already looking at bandwidth limits.

The ISP should provide the service I have paid for.I should be allowed to use the connection for anything I like. Obviously this does run into issues as to what is illegal, what isnt etc etc, but we are supposed to be allowed a level of privacy.

Its a fine line I think between locking everything down to stop to sick people, and letting average Jo get on with his life.

This could be a debate that could have many aspects, some that we may and maynot agree with.

****** Caveat *********My opinions are US specific. I don't know enough about most foreign countries constitutions to make such harsh judgments about this subject. If you live in China sorry but you can't complain (mostly because you would get thrown into prison) if you want access to unmonitored web traffic move or overthrow your government. **********************

ISPs should not be allowed to censor traffic that goes across their networks. But they should be allowed to take administrative actions when directed to by an authorized authority. For example I don't think an ISP should automatically take down a website they "believe" is hosting illegal content. They should certainly report it to the proper authorities and take action if directed to do so. This concept would also extend to network traffic ISPs shouldn't be allowed to view traffic at such a low level that they can distinguish between legal and illegal content. If a proper authority authorizes them to capture that information for law enforcement reasons that is acceptable.

ISPs would still retain the right to manage their network traffic to keep the network running properly. If they are seeing a DOS traffic that is negatively effecting their network they have the right to drop that traffic. If a customer requests certain traffic to be blocked from their network that isn't a problem. I would even go so far as to say if an ISP wanted to block all P2P traffic through their network that is acceptable as long as they aren't required or being pressured to do so for reasons other then sound network management. If an ISP is willing to tell it's customers that they do not allow P2P traffic they should be able to block that traffic. They may lose customers but that is their choice.